DocketNumber: No. CV 00-092119
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9880
Judges: ARENA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/28/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On May 4, 2000, the plaintiff, Greta Drennan, filed a complaint dated April 19, 2000 against the defendant, Tradewinds Group, Inc. ("Tradewinds") in connection with her knee replacement surgery.
Briefly, the following facts have been alleged: On or about April 21, 1997, Geist performed knee replacement surgery on Drennan at Middlesex Hospital placing a polyethylene tibial insert in her knee. On or about April 22, 1997 or April 23, 1997, Geist was informed by Tradewinds that the wrong insert was used during the surgery. On or about April 24, 1997, Drennan underwent another surgery wherein Geist exchanged the polyethylene tibial insert in her knee. As a result, Drennan claims that she sustained permanent and disabling injuries. Tradewinds was engaged in the wholesaling, distribution and/or retailing of polyethylene tibial inserts.
On June 22, 2000, Tradewinds filed a motion to dismiss, memorandum of law, and supporting documents, arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction because there was, and is now, another action pending in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, Drennan v. Geist, et al., Docket No. CV 99-089114 between the same parties involving the same issue as that alleged in this compliant dated April 19, 1999. On July 10, 2000, Drennan filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Also on July 10, 2000, Tradewinds filed a motion to amend the return date on the April 19, 2000 complaint.
II. Standard of Review:
"The grounds which may be asserted in [a motion to dismiss] are: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficiency of process; and (5) insufficiency of service of process." Zizka v. Water PollutionControl Authority,
III. Discussion: CT Page 9882
Tradewinds filed a motion to dismiss arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction because there was, and is now, another action pending in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, Docket No. CV 99-089114 between the same parties involving the same issue as that alleged in this compliant dated April 19, 2000.
"We have explicated the prior pending action doctrine as follows: The pendency of a prior suit of the same character, between the same parties, brought to obtain the same end or object, is, at common law, good cause for abatement. It is so, because there cannot be any reason or necessity for bringing the second, and, therefore, it must be oppressive and vexatious. This is a rule of justice and equity, generally applicable, and always, where the two suits are virtually alike, and in the same jurisdiction. We must examine the pleadings to ascertain whether the actions are virtually alike." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Halpern v. Board of Education,
At this time, there is a prior pending action between the same parties. On this same day, August 28, 2000, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown granted Drennan's Ex-Parte Motion To Cite In Additional Party Defendant, Tradewinds, in Drennan v.Geist, et al., Docket No. CV 99-089114.
In addition, the court is satisfied that the amended complaint in that action, dated April 18, 2000, Count Twelve, as to Tradewinds, alleges the same issue as that alleged in the complaint here, dated April 19, 2000, as to Tradewinds. Although the allegations are not exactly identical, the same claim is alleged — product liability. "A product liability claim . . . may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product." General Statutes §
In addition, the prayers for relief are identical. "This court can not permit two petitions seeking the same relief between the same parties to exist in separate actions simultaneously." Stanton v. Varrone, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 901552 (November 24, 1999, Pellegrino, J.). Both prayers request damages pursuant to General Statutes §§
Accordingly, the court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted.
IV. Conclusion:
For the reasons herein stated, the Motion To Dismiss is granted; Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss is overruled; and Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Return Date is denied.
It is so ordered.
By the court Arena, J.